Do Amazon reader reviews encourage cowardice?

Arguably, and at their best, they are self-correcting and encourage honest and open discussion.

But Richard Bernstein says today in the International Herald Tribune that the system encourages cowardice.

Here’s what he has to say about Amazon, and the letter he wrote to CEO Jeff Bezos:

Some time ago, I complained to Amazon.com about reviews posted on its site that offered what I felt were viciously negative and factually incorrect views of a book I had written.

Anybody of course is entitled to say what he or she wants about a book, including one written by me. It’s the anonymity that Amazon grants to its reader-reviewers that I objected to, on the grounds that anybody who wants to say something nasty about somebody else’s work ought to have the little bit of bravery needed to say it under his or her name.

When I wrote an e-mail to that effect to Jeffrey Bezos, Amazon’s head and founder, I received a reply from Amazon’s customer relations department saying that it allowed anonymous reviews as a way to encourage discussion. My reply was that, under the guise of encouraging free expression and unhindered debate, Amazon was really encouraging cowardice instead.

At the time I earned my living as a book critic for The New York Times, which, needless to say, did not allow me to hide behind a shield of anonymity in my own reviews. If I did have negative opinions about a book – and I often did – I could be held responsible if, in fact, my opinion was unjustified or unfair, or if I was avenging myself against someone who had once written negatively about me.

His comments are part of a larger story about the Internet and anonymity.

No matter your opinion of the Amazon reader reviews, this part is true: Bernstein writes, “Amazon’s reader reviews are an old story.”

I’d love to hear from someone who relies on the reader reviews, or someone who writes them.